November 9, 2016

Today begins President Obama’s 73 most dangerous days.
The election is over, but President Obama remains in office until January 20th. He reportedly still has a “huge agenda.”
He is plotting to abandon Israel, take numerous unconstitutional Executive actions, and undermine the law.
We will not back down from fighting the insidious corruption. We have defeated his lawlessness before – including unanimously at the Supreme Court – but now, in his final days, he is preparing to ramp up his lawless actions.
We must be prepared to defeat President Obama and stop him from crushing the Constitution.
The ACLJ filed 8 legal demands to stop the out-of-control corruption. We’ve filed 4 massive lawsuits in federal court confronting: 1) the Iran lie, 2) pay-to-play collusion, 3) genocide inaction, and 4) DOJ corruption. We’re beating back the IRS. Now we’re ready to return to federal court. We will win, but we urgently need your prayer and Tax-Deductible support TODAY, as we battle the Administration’s taxpayer-funded resources in federal court. Chip in $5 or more to defeat the lawlessness and it will be DOUBLED through our Matching Challenge.
Double Your Impact: $5 Becomes $10. $20 Becomes $40.
Jay Sekulow: ACLJ Chief Counsel
If you want more information o ensure that you continue to receive e-mails from the ACLJ, please add jay.sekulow@email.aclj.org to your address book.
This lame Duck time is EXTREMELY dangerous. Vance

The Changing Faith of Hillary Clinton

Grove City, PA -(Ammoland.com)- When many conservatives first learned back in 2007 that I had the temerity to write a book on the faith of Hillary Clinton, especially after books on the faiths of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, they looked at me with a mix of amazement and annoyance. Why would you do that?

My response, however, often surprised them. Yes, I told them that Hillary was, largely, a fairly standard Religious Left Protestant, though with a striking stridency on abortion far to the left of most of the Religious Left. But I always grabbed their attention with two particularly interesting things I stressed in the book: For one, Hillary Clinton supported natural, traditional, biblical marriage, with her faith a primary reason. Second, I noted that Hillary was a solid defender of religious freedom.

Those points are especially apt right now, albeit in a negative way. In the time since that book was published, Clinton has completely ditched her defense of marriage, becoming gung ho not only for same-sex “marriage” but much of the “LGBTQ” agenda, which has become a major thrust of her presidential campaign. Moreover, her abortion extremism has only gotten worse—and that’s really saying something. Hillary Clinton has plainly become a “pro-choice” fanatic. Her support of abortion and—conversely—vilification of pro-lifers, is way over-the-top. She has flown off the hinges. In the process, her onetime championing of religious freedom has been devoured by her devotion to the rabid pro-choice cause.

Here, in this essay, I’d like to address these issues, which I believe are the most revealing faith-related matters for Mrs. Clinton as she makes her bid for the White House.

Clinton Abandons Traditional Marriage

First, the marriage issue: As a lifelong member of the mainline United Methodist Church, Mrs. Clinton once fancied herself a traditionalist. “I am an old-fashioned Methodist,” she told Newsweek back in 1994. That included her traditional position on marriage. She backed her husband signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

That position remained consistent, though she received unrelenting pushback from the “gay” community in New York when she ran for the U.S. Senate seat there.

“Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” said Clinton in White Plains, New York on the 2000 campaign trail.

In June 2003, she reaffirmed her position on New York’s WNYC: “You know, marriage has a meaning that I … I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have, you know, many of the same rights and the same, you know, respect for their unions that they are seeking …. I also think that we can realize the same results for many committed couples by urging that states and localities adopt civil union and domestic partnership laws.”

Her position remained clear, even as she was stating it with rising unease. Still, on the 2008 presidential campaign trail, Clinton, like Barack Obama, defended Christian marriage, advocating civil unions and leaving the legality of marriage to the states.

This all dramatically changed on March 18, 2013, when the Human Rights Campaign joined Hillary in posting an exclusive video where she came out for same-sex “marriage.” “LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship,” said Mrs. Clinton. “That includes gay marriage.”

Clinton came out about a year after Barack Obama did in his interview with Robin Roberts at the White House before the 2012 presidential election. Was Mrs. Clinton likewise positioning for a presidential election down the road? Either way, there it was: Hillary Clinton had endorsed gay “marriage.”

For the lifelong “old-fashioned Methodist,” this was a major change.

Clinton’s Pro-Choice Obsession

An even more shocking change has been Clinton’s jettisoning her advocacy of religious freedom in deference to her “pro-choice” extremism.

That extremism was evident long before she entered elected office. It was evident to a little nun from Calcutta named Mother Teresa, who frequently reached out to the first lady in the 1990s, apparently sensing a major future role for this woman. A dramatic occasion occurred in February 1994, with Mother Teresa’s unforgettable National Prayer Breakfast speech, where she poignantly condemned abortion. “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion,” said the nun, “because Jesus said, ‘If you receive a little child, you receive me.’ So every abortion is the denial of receiving Jesus, the neglect of receiving Jesus.”

When the speech was over, the persistent nun sought out Mrs. Clinton. “She wanted to talk to me,” Hillary said later. “Mother Teresa was unerringly direct. She disagreed with my views on a woman’s right to choose and told me so.”

With love and charity, Mother Teresa never stopped trying to befriend Mrs. Clinton and working to soften her shell on unborn life. Unfortunately, this was one hardened heart the nun could not change.

In the years ahead, that heart darkened, with Clinton always finding excuses to fail to protect unborn children, including her unwillingness to ban partial-birth abortion. “Of course it’s a horrible procedure,” she said in October 2000. “No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.”

That mantra, “this must be a woman’s choice,” has been her flag. I could give example after example. One case came January 22, 2004, when she delivered the keynote at NARAL’s annual Roe v Wade dinner. She characterized pro-lifers in hysterical imagery, as plotters scheming to overthrow America’s greatest “right.” This was merely step one, said Senator Clinton, in an insidious conspiracy to remove “all” rights of privacy: “Their first objective is to overturn Roe. To do that, they are willing to throw out all rights of privacy. Many of us say, ‘How can they so casually toss out the right of privacy to get at Roe? Don’t they believe in privacy?’ The answer is no, they do not.”

This kind of anger at pro-lifers seems ingrained in Mrs. Clinton’s DNA.

Speaking in May 2015, she slammed Congress for passing a bill to protect babies from late-term abortions, calling it a “direct challenge to … a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.” Her campaign issued a statement insisting that the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act “follows a dangerous trend we are witnessing across the country.” What is that dangerous trend? “In just the first three months of 2015, more than 300 bills have been introduced in state legislatures—on top of the nearly 30 measures introduced in Congress—that restrict access to abortion.”

Throughout the remainder of 2015, Mrs. Clinton fiercely defended Planned Parenthood amid the Center for Medical Progress’s video-sting revealing the organization’s “medical” personnel discussing the “harvesting” of baby parts. “I don’t have all the facts but Planned Parenthood has apologized for the insensitivity of the employee who was taped,” protested Mrs. Clinton of the Chianti-sipping woman nonchalantly discussing crushed baby organs while nibbling her Caesar’s salad. “But for more than a century Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women.” Fittingly, to Mrs. Clinton, the bad guys were the video-makers. “I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood had been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years,” she complained, “and it’s really an attack against women’s rights to choose.”

And then came this biggie for the 2016 election: Earlier this year, in what was quickly embraced by Hillary Clinton as the highest praise, Planned Parenthood enthusiastically endorsed Clinton as president. Clinton now boasts the first-ever endorsement of a candidate in a presidential primary in the nearly 100-year checkered existence of Planned Parenthood.

Whether defending the organization’s taxpayer funding or literal business of mass production of baby parts, Hillary has their back.

Hillary and Cecile Richards are sisters-in-arms. Hillary paid back Richards by recognizing her as an honored, highlighted guest at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. No two women in that convention hall had the respect of the Democratic Party faithful quite like Hillary and Cecile.

Surrendering Religious Liberty

Again, numerous examples of Hillary Clinton’s pro-choice obsession could be shared here. It is a very long and very ugly history. The connection between this obsession over abortion and her abandonment of religious liberty becomes clear with her reaction to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.

One of the most-reviled foes on Clinton’s “anti-choice” enemy’s list is Hobby Lobby, an object of ongoing excoriation for her since the Supreme Court ruling last year. Speaking in Aspen, Colorado in June 2014, she said this of the Hobby Lobby decision: “I disagree with the reasoning as well as the conclusion…. It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means the corporation’s … employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and, of course, denying women the right to contraceptives as part of a health care plan is exactly that.”

An ominous Mrs. Clinton added: “I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction.”

Yes, there is something deeply disturbing there, but it isn’t Hobby Lobby. In truth, the “imposing” happening there is against Hobby Lobby, where the government is trying to force Hobby Lobby’s owners to fund something that violates their religious beliefs. The company is not denying women their “right to contraceptives.” That right remains fully open. Hobby Lobby simply does not want to be compelled to pay for the stuff. Women can buy it themselves for less than $10 per month at Target, or head to the local Planned Parenthood clinic, where they hand it out like candy.

Even then, Hillary Clinton’s statement was even more disturbing. The reality is that Hobby Lobby provides a plan that gives female employees contraceptives. In fact, the plan covered 16 of 20 FDA-approved contraceptives. Hobby Lobby is run by pro-life Protestants who objected not to all contraceptives but only the kind that cause an abortion, i.e., abortifacients.

Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton, who should know this, given her infatuation with these “women’s issues” and being a presidential front-runner (as well as a lawyer), has proceeded with her bad facts and demagoguery of the issue. “It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

Worse, in these same remarks in Aspen, Clinton seemed to link this allegedly misogynistic behavior by Hobby Lobby with the Middle Eastern misogyny she observed as secretary of state: “Part of the reason I was so adamant about including women and girls in our foreign policy, not as a luxury but as a central issue, is because they’re often the canaries in the mine. You watch women and girls being deprived of their rights, some of them never have them, some of them lose them. Among those rights is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families. It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism. Where women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people—men—to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but which prop up them because of their religion, their sect, their tribe, whatever.” In the next sentence, she went right at Hobby Lobby: “So to introduce this element into our society … it’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

Of course, this is outrageous. How can anyone at Clinton’s level advance such a comparison? The answer is because of her crusade for the widest availability of abortion—even when religious freedom is at stake.

As for religious freedom, in 2005 Senator Clinton actually co-sponsored (with Rick Santorum, no less) the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Likewise, her husband was a proponent of religious freedom. Bill Clinton supported the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed 97-3 by the Senate) and the 1997 Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace.

But when religious rights meet “abortion rights,” Mrs. Clinton has little sympathy. To borrow from Nancy Pelosi, that is “sacred ground.”

Indeed, as readers here know, the Supreme Court, in its majority decision in favor of Hobby Lobby (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties), ruled that the Obama administration’s HHS mandate, as applied to “closely held corporations,” was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and supported by Hillary.

Alas, one eye-opening moment where today’s Hillary Clinton brought all of these issues together under one roof were her remarks in April 2015 at the annual Women in the World Summit. There, she argued that “far too many women are still denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth,” and, in a shocking statement, insisted that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” to give women full access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

This naturally led to another dig at the likes of Hobby Lobby: “There are those who offer themselves as leaders … who see nothing wrong with denying women equal pay, who offer themselves as leaders who would de-fund the country’s leading provider of family planning [i.e., Planned Parenthood] and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

More than that, the new “LGBT” Hillary proffered: “We move forward when gay and transgendered women are embraced as our colleagues and friends, not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are. We move forward when women who came to this country in search of a better life can earn a path to citizenship.”

Now there’s the Hillary Clinton of the twenty-first century, all in one.

In sum, once upon a time, Hillary Clinton and her campaign molders tried to frame her as a centrist, as was successfully done in helping her husband win the presidency. Her faith was central to that effort. Not anymore.

An “old-fashioned Methodist”? That Hillary Clinton is long gone, crushed under the wheels of a newfound love for the “LGBTQ” banner and an unrestrained ardor for abortion that tramples religious freedom.

Dr. Paul Kengor

About the Author:

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book is Takedown. His other books include 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

August 17, 2016

Grove City, PA -(Ammoland.com)- When many conservatives first learned back in 2007 that I had the temerity to write a book on the faith of Hillary Clinton, especially after books on the faiths of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, they looked at me with a mix of amazement and annoyance. Why would you do that?

My response, however, often surprised them. Yes, I told them that Hillary was, largely, a fairly standard Religious Left Protestant, though with a striking stridency on abortion far to the left of most of the Religious Left. But I always grabbed their attention with two particularly interesting things I stressed in the book: For one, Hillary Clinton supported natural, traditional, biblical marriage, with her faith a primary reason. Second, I noted that Hillary was a solid defender of religious freedom.

Those points are especially apt right now, albeit in a negative way. In the time since that book was published, Clinton has completely ditched her defense of marriage, becoming gung ho not only for same-sex “marriage” but much of the “LGBTQ” agenda, which has become a major thrust of her presidential campaign. Moreover, her abortion extremism has only gotten worse—and that’s really saying something. Hillary Clinton has plainly become a “pro-choice” fanatic. Her support of abortion and—conversely—vilification of pro-lifers, is way over-the-top. She has flown off the hinges. In the process, her onetime championing of religious freedom has been devoured by her devotion to the rabid pro-choice cause.

Here, in this essay, I’d like to address these issues, which I believe are the most revealing faith-related matters for Mrs. Clinton as she makes her bid for the White House.

Clinton Abandons Traditional Marriage

First, the marriage issue: As a lifelong member of the mainline United Methodist Church, Mrs. Clinton once fancied herself a traditionalist. “I am an old-fashioned Methodist,” she told Newsweek back in 1994. That included her traditional position on marriage. She backed her husband signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

That position remained consistent, though she received unrelenting pushback from the “gay” community in New York when she ran for the U.S. Senate seat there.

“Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” said Clinton in White Plains, New York on the 2000 campaign trail.

In June 2003, she reaffirmed her position on New York’s WNYC: “You know, marriage has a meaning that I … I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have, you know, many of the same rights and the same, you know, respect for their unions that they are seeking …. I also think that we can realize the same results for many committed couples by urging that states and localities adopt civil union and domestic partnership laws.”

Her position remained clear, even as she was stating it with rising unease. Still, on the 2008 presidential campaign trail, Clinton, like Barack Obama, defended Christian marriage, advocating civil unions and leaving the legality of marriage to the states.

This all dramatically changed on March 18, 2013, when the Human Rights Campaign joined Hillary in posting an exclusive video where she came out for same-sex “marriage.” “LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship,” said Mrs. Clinton. “That includes gay marriage.”

Clinton came out about a year after Barack Obama did in his interview with Robin Roberts at the White House before the 2012 presidential election. Was Mrs. Clinton likewise positioning for a presidential election down the road? Either way, there it was: Hillary Clinton had endorsed gay “marriage.”

For the lifelong “old-fashioned Methodist,” this was a major change.

Clinton’s Pro-Choice Obsession

An even more shocking change has been Clinton’s jettisoning her advocacy of religious freedom in deference to her “pro-choice” extremism.

That extremism was evident long before she entered elected office. It was evident to a little nun from Calcutta named Mother Teresa, who frequently reached out to the first lady in the 1990s, apparently sensing a major future role for this woman. A dramatic occasion occurred in February 1994, with Mother Teresa’s unforgettable National Prayer Breakfast speech, where she poignantly condemned abortion. “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion,” said the nun, “because Jesus said, ‘If you receive a little child, you receive me.’ So every abortion is the denial of receiving Jesus, the neglect of receiving Jesus.”

When the speech was over, the persistent nun sought out Mrs. Clinton. “She wanted to talk to me,” Hillary said later. “Mother Teresa was unerringly direct. She disagreed with my views on a woman’s right to choose and told me so.”

With love and charity, Mother Teresa never stopped trying to befriend Mrs. Clinton and working to soften her shell on unborn life. Unfortunately, this was one hardened heart the nun could not change.

In the years ahead, that heart darkened, with Clinton always finding excuses to fail to protect unborn children, including her unwillingness to ban partial-birth abortion. “Of course it’s a horrible procedure,” she said in October 2000. “No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.”

That mantra, “this must be a woman’s choice,” has been her flag. I could give example after example. One case came January 22, 2004, when she delivered the keynote at NARAL’s annual Roe v Wade dinner. She characterized pro-lifers in hysterical imagery, as plotters scheming to overthrow America’s greatest “right.” This was merely step one, said Senator Clinton, in an insidious conspiracy to remove “all” rights of privacy: “Their first objective is to overturn Roe. To do that, they are willing to throw out all rights of privacy. Many of us say, ‘How can they so casually toss out the right of privacy to get at Roe? Don’t they believe in privacy?’ The answer is no, they do not.”

This kind of anger at pro-lifers seems ingrained in Mrs. Clinton’s DNA.

Speaking in May 2015, she slammed Congress for passing a bill to protect babies from late-term abortions, calling it a “direct challenge to … a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.” Her campaign issued a statement insisting that the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act “follows a dangerous trend we are witnessing across the country.” What is that dangerous trend? “In just the first three months of 2015, more than 300 bills have been introduced in state legislatures—on top of the nearly 30 measures introduced in Congress—that restrict access to abortion.”

Throughout the remainder of 2015, Mrs. Clinton fiercely defended Planned Parenthood amid the Center for Medical Progress’s video-sting revealing the organization’s “medical” personnel discussing the “harvesting” of baby parts. “I don’t have all the facts but Planned Parenthood has apologized for the insensitivity of the employee who was taped,” protested Mrs. Clinton of the Chianti-sipping woman nonchalantly discussing crushed baby organs while nibbling her Caesar’s salad. “But for more than a century Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women.” Fittingly, to Mrs. Clinton, the bad guys were the video-makers. “I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood had been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years,” she complained, “and it’s really an attack against women’s rights to choose.”

And then came this biggie for the 2016 election: Earlier this year, in what was quickly embraced by Hillary Clinton as the highest praise, Planned Parenthood enthusiastically endorsed Clinton as president. Clinton now boasts the first-ever endorsement of a candidate in a presidential primary in the nearly 100-year checkered existence of Planned Parenthood.

Whether defending the organization’s taxpayer funding or literal business of mass production of baby parts, Hillary has their back.

Hillary and Cecile Richards are sisters-in-arms. Hillary paid back Richards by recognizing her as an honored, highlighted guest at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. No two women in that convention hall had the respect of the Democratic Party faithful quite like Hillary and Cecile.

Surrendering Religious Liberty

Again, numerous examples of Hillary Clinton’s pro-choice obsession could be shared here. It is a very long and very ugly history. The connection between this obsession over abortion and her abandonment of religious liberty becomes clear with her reaction to the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.

One of the most-reviled foes on Clinton’s “anti-choice” enemy’s list is Hobby Lobby, an object of ongoing excoriation for her since the Supreme Court ruling last year. Speaking in Aspen, Colorado in June 2014, she said this of the Hobby Lobby decision: “I disagree with the reasoning as well as the conclusion…. It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means the corporation’s … employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and, of course, denying women the right to contraceptives as part of a health care plan is exactly that.”

An ominous Mrs. Clinton added: “I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction.”

Yes, there is something deeply disturbing there, but it isn’t Hobby Lobby. In truth, the “imposing” happening there is against Hobby Lobby, where the government is trying to force Hobby Lobby’s owners to fund something that violates their religious beliefs. The company is not denying women their “right to contraceptives.” That right remains fully open. Hobby Lobby simply does not want to be compelled to pay for the stuff. Women can buy it themselves for less than $10 per month at Target, or head to the local Planned Parenthood clinic, where they hand it out like candy.

Even then, Hillary Clinton’s statement was even more disturbing. The reality is that Hobby Lobby provides a plan that gives female employees contraceptives. In fact, the plan covered 16 of 20 FDA-approved contraceptives. Hobby Lobby is run by pro-life Protestants who objected not to all contraceptives but only the kind that cause an abortion, i.e., abortifacients.

Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton, who should know this, given her infatuation with these “women’s issues” and being a presidential front-runner (as well as a lawyer), has proceeded with her bad facts and demagoguery of the issue. “It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

Worse, in these same remarks in Aspen, Clinton seemed to link this allegedly misogynistic behavior by Hobby Lobby with the Middle Eastern misogyny she observed as secretary of state: “Part of the reason I was so adamant about including women and girls in our foreign policy, not as a luxury but as a central issue, is because they’re often the canaries in the mine. You watch women and girls being deprived of their rights, some of them never have them, some of them lose them. Among those rights is control over their bodies, control over their own health care, control over the size of their families. It is a disturbing trend that you see in a lot of societies that are very unstable, anti-democratic, and frankly prone to extremism. Where women and women’s bodies are used as the defining and unifying issue to bring together people—men—to get them to behave in ways that are disadvantageous to women but which prop up them because of their religion, their sect, their tribe, whatever.” In the next sentence, she went right at Hobby Lobby: “So to introduce this element into our society … it’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”

Of course, this is outrageous. How can anyone at Clinton’s level advance such a comparison? The answer is because of her crusade for the widest availability of abortion—even when religious freedom is at stake.

As for religious freedom, in 2005 Senator Clinton actually co-sponsored (with Rick Santorum, no less) the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Likewise, her husband was a proponent of religious freedom. Bill Clinton supported the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed 97-3 by the Senate) and the 1997 Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace.

But when religious rights meet “abortion rights,” Mrs. Clinton has little sympathy. To borrow from Nancy Pelosi, that is “sacred ground.”

Indeed, as readers here know, the Supreme Court, in its majority decision in favor of Hobby Lobby (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties), ruled that the Obama administration’s HHS mandate, as applied to “closely held corporations,” was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and supported by Hillary.

Alas, one eye-opening moment where today’s Hillary Clinton brought all of these issues together under one roof were her remarks in April 2015 at the annual Women in the World Summit. There, she argued that “far too many women are still denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth,” and, in a shocking statement, insisted that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” to give women full access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”

This naturally led to another dig at the likes of Hobby Lobby: “There are those who offer themselves as leaders … who see nothing wrong with denying women equal pay, who offer themselves as leaders who would de-fund the country’s leading provider of family planning [i.e., Planned Parenthood] and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

More than that, the new “LGBT” Hillary proffered: “We move forward when gay and transgendered women are embraced as our colleagues and friends, not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are. We move forward when women who came to this country in search of a better life can earn a path to citizenship.”

Now there’s the Hillary Clinton of the twenty-first century, all in one.

In sum, once upon a time, Hillary Clinton and her campaign molders tried to frame her as a centrist, as was successfully done in helping her husband win the presidency. Her faith was central to that effort. Not anymore.

An “old-fashioned Methodist”? That Hillary Clinton is long gone, crushed under the wheels of a newfound love for the “LGBTQ” banner and an unrestrained ardor for abortion that tramples religious freedom.

Dr. Paul Kengor

About the Author:

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book is Takedown. His other books include 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

July 6, 2016

Our thoughts and prayers are with all the victims of the attack at the Istanbul airport that killed 41 people and injured 239. It looks as though the Islamic state of Syria and Iraq are behind it, according to news sources. Seems to be more evidence of a peaceful religion. Senator John Barrasso, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is right—President Obama needs to call this what it is and not what he wishes it would be. President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton you have denied the truth about Islam for too long, and it is not only costing the lives of Americans both at home and abroad, but also the lives of our allies. Franklin Graham

January 28, 2016

December 24, 2015

Tomorrow is Christmas, a day meant to commemorate the incarnationof Jesus Christ, God the Son. In recent decades, this holy day has been commercialized and transformed into one of the busiest shopping times of the year.
But that isn’t what Christmas is about. Christmas is about remembering that 2000 years ago, a baby was born to redeem us all.
Christ came for all men and women. It doesn’t matter whether you are young or old, big or small, black or white… the King of Kings doesn’t care about your class, race, or ethnicity…
He came to this earth to save each and every one of us; to forgive our sins and guide us down the path towards salvation.
There are times when we fall; times when fail to live up to the teachings that Jesus left us.
But even in our darkest hours, Christmas serves as a reminder that no man is beyond saving. The Lord gives up on no one. This Christmas, I ask that you do the same.
If you’re feuding with a family member, pick up the phone and tell them that you love them…
If you are in an argument with a friend or neighbor and not speaking to one another, be the one to break the silence…
If you have a family member that is a Democrat, tell them you forgive them…
We are on this earthly plane for such a short time. Far too often, we allow silly things to get in the way of sharing these blessed moments with the people we care about.
On December 26th, we will be back at it, working to take this country back.
But on this holiday, let us remember that two millennia ago, an infant was born who set the world aflame.

December 2, 2015

Etobicoke, ON -(AmmoLand.com)-On September 5, 2013, Wildrose MLA Danielle Smith held a Town Hall in High River, Alberta to shed some light on the forced entries into what we thought were a few hundred homes by the RCMP and the unwarranted searches of and seizures from those homes.

S/Sgt. Ian Shardlow told the crowd: “We started to collect the information, we basically solicited people to come forward with the complaints and the numbers are correct it’s around nineteen hundred, I’m going to suggest it will probably stop before two thousand.”

The High River Detachment Commander was almost right. We now know, thanks to the Office of the Information Commissioner and a year and half wait, that High River residents actually filed 2,010 complaints caused by the RCMP’s unnecessary and unwarranted actions in High River homes following the flood.

You will remember in the ‘Interim Report’ concerning the High River forced entries, unwarranted entries and gun grab, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP stated: “In the process of carrying out these emergency plans, RCMP members entered 4,666 homes, and forced entries into more than 754 of those homes.”

We all knew it was more – but 1,256 more?

It was harder than pulling hens teeth to get the truth out of the RCMP. I filed my first Access to Information Program (ATIP) request with the RCMP on June 22, 2014, asking for a summary report of the number of damage claims and repair costs. I thought after a year that all the data should be readily available. I was wrong. In October, I was told by the RCMP ATIP advisor that they didn’t really have any records on damage claims or costs. I filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner. On November 13, 2014, I filed another ATIP request with the RCMP asking for a copy of each of the 1,900+ damage claims filed with the RCMP by High River residents. In March 2015, the RCMP assessed me search fees amounting to $3,150. I filed another complaint with the Information Commissioner about the assessment of exorbitant fees for what I knew had to be mostly electronic records. Still the RCMP refused to cough up the information I requested.

The Information Commissioner took the RCMP to Federal Court and the Court decision was rendered on March 31, 2015: “the Act and Regulations do not prescribe the application fees to the modern concept of electronic records.”

The Information Commissioner intervened again with the RCMP on my behalf in September 2015 and the RCMP finally admitted that they had a summary report with the information about the damage claims (a report the RCMP insisted didn’t exist in response to my request in June of 2014). I agreed to modify my request and instead of insisting on copies of the 85,000 pages of High River damage complaints now printed out and taking up 16 file boxes, I agreed to take a copy of the summary report that was immediately available. I finally received this report on November 12, 2015, a year and a half after I made my original request.

Preliminary analysis of this summary report on High River damage claims filed with the RCMP in High River shows:

High River Damage Claims filed: 2,210 (825 claims no amount showing)

High River Damage Claims Still Open: 330

High River Damage Claims Still Under Review: 275

High River Damage Claims Denied: 3

Damage Claims Sent to the Town of High River: 1,651

Total Amount of Damages Claimed by Residents: $2,592,682.81

Total Claims Recommended for Payment by RCMP: $2,511,630.64

Average Damage Claim: $1,871.97 (where amount claimed is available)

Largest Single Claim: $201,870.57

Second Largest Claim: $65,880.11

Third Largest Claim: $33,475.40

Question: Wonder what the RCMP did to these three homes to cause so much damage? Another ATIP request coming up.

So how much has all this RCMP door-kicking cost taxpayers (so far)? For this I had to file a request with Alberta Municipal Affairs under the Alberta Freedom of Information Act (FOIP). On October 1, 2015, Municipal Affairs provided a response providing me with a spreadsheet with the following details:

Claims Filed and Paid: 1,498

Total Amount Paid by the Province: $2,356,530.91

Average Claim: $1,573

Largest Single Claim Paid (to date): $63,001.06

Here is the explanation for the RCMP forced entries and resulting damages provided in the RCMP Complaint Commissioner’s Interim Report: “During the initial searches to protect life, the team scribes were directed to record specific information, including the number of homes damaged, which was 754. Following the flood, detachment members investigated more than 1,900 complaints of property damage. Some of that damage was attributable to other causes, such as the flood or suspected break-ins. Nevertheless, there are a significant number of homes which appeared to have been forcibly entered, but for which there was no accounting in the RCMP records. Again, because of the lack of records, it is impossible to determine how many times the damage was the result of the home inspection teams’ forced entry after the initial searches to protect life. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, in some instances, RCMP members forced entry into buildings while conducting escort duties of the home inspection teams.”

Here are just a few questions the RCMP Complaint Commissioner’s Interim Report on High River didn’t answer:

Why wasn’t this information about the exact number and cost of the damage claims reported in the RCMP Public Complaints Commission Interim Report?

Why did the RCMP force the Information Commissioner to take them to court before releasing this summary report? What else are they hiding from the public?

Who gave the order for the RCMP to kick in doors to High River homes and why?

Why did the RCMP keep kicking in doors when RCMP reports tabled in Parliament show they resulted in not even one person being rescued or helped?

How does the authority to enter ‘buildings’ without warrant in the Alberta Emergency Management Act override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Why didn’t the Alberta Bill of Rights, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect the rights of the residents of High River?

Why was the authority to order unwarranted entries of High River homes under the Alberta Emergency Management Act not properly delegated?

Why hasn’t anyone apologized to the residents of High River for illegally entering their homes, searching their homes without warrant and seizing their private property also without warrant?

What is being done to address the dangerous consequences of the RCMP’s illegal acts when polls show that fifty percent of High River residents will refuse to evacuate in the event of another emergency?

Why did police in thirty other flooded Alberta communities not have to resort to kicking in a single door to a person’s home?

What steps have been taken to make sure that this never happens again in any community in Canada?

Let’s all hope the RCMP Complaint Commission’s Final Report on High River will be released soon and provide answers all the unanswered questions. If the Commission won’t or can’t answer all these unanswered questions, then which level of government will do the right thing and call a judicial inquiry?

About CSSA:

The CSSA is the voice of the sport shooter and firearms enthusiast in Canada. Our national membership supports and promotes Canada’s firearms heritage, traditional target shooting competition, modern action shooting sports, hunting, and archery. We support and sponsor competitions and youth programs that promote these Canadian heritage activities.

November 19, 2015

Satanists seek to ally with U.S. Muslims after Paris terror
‘Don’t hesitate to reach out to us’
Douglas Ernst is a staff writer for WND. He formerly wrote for the Washington Times. He also worked at The Heritage Foundation in its Young Leaders Program. The Satanic Temple has a message for alienated U.S. Muslims: Let’s be friends.
American satanists who recently tried to install a bronze Baphomet statue near a Ten Commandments monument in Oklahoma now want to ally with alienated Muslims. The organization’s offer comes less than one week after Islamic terror attacks in Paris, France, killed 129 and injured more than 350.
“If there is anyone in the San Jose region who is Muslim and afraid to leave their home out of fear for some kind of backlash, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We would be glad to escort you where you need to go without advertising our presence – just big dudes walking you where you need to be. We would also happily deliver you some groceries,” the San Jose, California, chapter of the Satanic Temple said on its Facebook page Wednesday, the Washington Times reported.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul chapter of the temple followed suit.
“Our offer to the Muslims of the Twin Cities comes from a place of genuine compassion for our fellow human beings. It’s not to ride the tide of sentiment or capitalize on people for further name recognition,” the group said on its Facebook page Wednesday.
Muslim Facebook users were grateful for the offer.
“I don’t live in Minneapolis, but as an American Muslim I’m glad to see you guys take up this effort and help out a marginalized group. Thank you for doing this and building bridges between communities,” said Abu-Saleh Nafees Imtiyaj on Thursday.
“I’d also like to join the many other American-Muslim voices to offer deeply appreciated acknowledgement and thanks. I have been the victim of random verbal abuse and know many other Muslims in North America who have been the victims of random physical attacks,” added J’Amy McCracken.

November 1, 2015

Australian Gun Law Update;
Here’s a thought to warm some of your hearts….
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria…..alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns….’

You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it’s too late!

FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.
DON’T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.
BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON ‘T STAND FOR NONSENSE
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN